On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:29 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


Wow, imagine that. Smartphones have been doing similar for years
now. You don't want a smartphone? Don't want Win 10? Don't use
it! Just stop bitching.

Which smartphones specifically are keeping copies of my conversations
and submitting them elsewhere? Go ahead, take your time to form a
reasonable and believable reply. I'll wait.


All Androids come with Google software which takes speech input and
sends if off to Google for it to search, answer the question you
asked. iPhones offer the same. It's very similar to what MSFT is
doing with Cortana on Win 10. And the smartphones had it long before
Win 10. Both smartphones, browsers and search engines on PC's that
people use send off what you're searching for, what pages you've
visited. What Win 10 is doing isn't anything new. It would be, if
they were in fact going through your word files, your excel spreadsheets,
your CAD files, etc, which is what you're claiming they do. However,
you've provided nothing to show that MSFT is doing that and there is
no reason to believe they are. Collecting info on what websites you
visited, what searches you did, etc, that makes sense and they do
that, nothing new there.

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:29 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
Fri, 07 Apr 2017
15:13:27 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:25:55 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/06/2017 08:52 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

[snip]

FYI, Win 10 doesn't snoop through any user files.
Of course you can believe what you wish.

Maybe so, but with "automatic updates" they could start any time
they want to.


Anybody can disable the Window Update service is they choose to.
Mine is disabled.

So you think. Again, you not only believe in ignorance, you share your
ignorance about the subject with us all.

But if Windows 10 was actually doing even 1% of the "spying" the
tinfoil hat crowd claims they're doing, they'd have some proof,
and have MS in court. They don't.



Obviously "everybody" is not saying what you say, ie that MSFT is spying on
us with Win 10. Here's an example of what ZD Net says:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/no-micr...th-windows-10/


No, Microsoft is not spying on you with Windows 10
The Windows 10 privacy agreement doesn't mean Microsoft is secretly stealing the data from your hard disk. Where do people come up with these crazy ideas?

Buy tinfoil futures.

I'm dead serious. There is apparently a growing and very vocal population of people who believe that Windows 10 is basically a 1984 telescreen come to life. They are convinced that with Windows 10 Microsoft has built a spying apparatus not seen since the height of the Cold War, scraping up every detail of your life and feeding it back to Redmond for who knows what nefarious purposes.

They're going to need lots of tinfoil.

They're also either wildly misinformed or deliberately agitating. Unless, of course, they're just crazy, which is entirely possible based on some of what I've read."

You think everybody is making it up then? We're all just out to get MS,
is that right?


Not everybody, but there sure are a whole lot of people who hate
MSFT and were ranting and raving long before Win 10.

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:30 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


security updates, ARE infact, updates.


They are just one part of normal product updates during a
product's lifecycle. Security updates are not bug fixes,
improvements, changes made to keep things compatible with new web
softwar, to support new features, etc.

You're really going to continue trying to talk down to me? Seriously?


Not talking down to you, just explaining the facts. You seem to think
that security updates are all there is to product support. That's not
true. Security updates are the last part of product support and Mozilla
has said they are ending support for Firefox on XP, so why are you
advocating it as a browser for XP for the future?




Security updates are the LAST part of a product's life. And
again, Mozilla has said that security updates will end in just
FIVE months. So, again, WTF is your point? The context here was
upgrading a system now to use FOR THE FUTURE. Five months of
security updates and then even that support ends, that is
reassuring, a path you recommend users be on? Good grief!

Security updates are not the last part or the middle part or any
other part of it's life cycle specifically.

Another lame spin attempt. I didn't say security updates show up only
as the last part of a product's lifecycle. I said that product
support doesn't just include security updates, but also includes
improvements, bug fixes, compatiblity fixes, etc. When the product
is being discontinued, security updates are the last part of support
that's ended. All that other support goes first and that has already
happened with Firefox. And again, Mozilla has said they are discontinuing
Firefox for XP. I posted it. They said some time ago they will only continue
security updates and that is only guaranteed until SEPT 2017, just
FIVE MONTHS FROM NOW.

It's really remarkable that you want to argue that Firefox is supported
on XP, especially in the context of this thread, which is upgrading
a system for THE FUTURE. Please, stop embarrassing yourself.


They are security
updates, issued whenever a problem is discovered. That has nothing
whatsoever to do with the age of the app or it's near end of support
status.


It does when they've said they are end of lifing Firefox for XP and
that security updates are all they are offering now and that is only
guaranteed for 5 months. If you follow any OS eols, browser eols,
you'd know that support for everything but security updates goes
first, then even the security updates.



It's absolutely true. Here again from Mozilla:

You're stretching a bit here. And, you aren't dumb enough not to know
that.


I'm stretching? ROFL! Mozilla has said they are EOLing Firefox for
XP, they announced that long ago and that they would only offer
security updates until Sept 2017. You're the one stretching that,
claiming that Firefox is being supported on XP and that it's
a browser choice for the OP for the future. Five months of just security
updates is a future? Good grief.



Firefox is one of the only browsers to offer any support for
Windows XP and Vista. Microsoft itself ended support for Windows
XP in 2014 and will end support for Windows Vista in 2017.
Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have
known exploits, and can be dangerous to use, which makes it
difficult to maintain Firefox on those versions."

cite specific exploits in XP that are still unpatched and being used
in some way to 0wn an XP box. I've read scare mongering stories about
the reason for leaving it behind for awhile now, yet, nobody seems
able to provide an actual example. Btw, I'm going to go ahead and
disclose that i've been a member of various 0day exploit sites going
back a decade or more. If something comes up, I'd be one of the first
to not only know about it, but have viable proof of concept code
demonstrating it, too. I already disclosed a bit about myself. I've
been in the hacking scene since I was a kiddo. Although I'm a grayhat
these days, I still maintain contact with all my friends from the
blackhat days. it's prudent for me to do so, obviously.

I thought my point was self explanatory.

Yes, your point was that it's not 2017 and that Firefox is still
fully supported on XP and a wise choice for the future.

Ehh. Not quite. Now, you're actually putting words in my mouth. I
didn't say XP was a wise choice for the future,

Well then why are you here arguing, trying to make Firefox on XP a
valid browser choice for the future?

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:31 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Fri, 07
Apr 2017 19:43:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 6:20:48 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Sam E
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:39:54 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 04/06/2017 03:04 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox
will still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly
a 'niche' browser.


You must not know much about calendars, it's already 2017.

Nice try.

Nice try at what? It is in fact already 2017.

It's not fall 2017 yet (when Firefox support ends).

When it might, possibly, end.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurerelea...irefox-support
-for-xp-and-vista/

In approximately March, 2017, Windows XP and Vista users will
automatically be moved to the Firefox Extended Support Release
(ESR).

Firefox is one of the few browsers that continues to support
Windows XP and Vista, and we expect to continue to provide
security updates for users until September 2017. Users do not
need to take additional action to receive those updates. In
mid-2017, user numbers on Windows XP and Vista will be reassessed
and a final support end date will be announced.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Again, the context of the thread was upgrading hardware on an XP
system with the intention of using it into the future.

True so far.

So, let's get this right. Based on the above, it's your
professional opinion that relying on Firefox as a browser that
will run on XP for the future is a sound decision?

That's not what I wrote, Trader.

That's the context of the thread, where you started arguing that Firefox
is supported on XP, based on the fact that there currently is only
security updates left for Firefox and even that is scheduled to end in Sept.
I said one big problem with XP is that IDK of any browser that is still
supported under XP. That is true. Mozillar ended all support except
for security updates and even those are guaranteed only through Sept 2017.

But no, according to you, Firefox is still supported under XP. Who
should we believe? You or Mozilla?



Infact, I advised the OP not to
pursue XP 64bit or 'upgrade' to Windows 7, either; for the same
reason. He's only delaying the inevitable.

Oh, I see. But when I said IDK of any browsers that are still
supported on XP, you chimed in with "Firefox is still supported",
when the only support left is security updates and that for
5 months? WTF is wrong with you?



If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not Win****
10.

Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?

That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being used
for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop, there's no
reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact, disable the CNC machine
and/or plasma cutter.

Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context at least.



That while Mozilla has said they have already
discontinued all support except for security updates, that because
they have said they will continue to provide only security updates
for 5 months, that means it's supported and a swell choice? WTF?

Er, not quite, no. Still supported, yes.

IT's not supported when all support except for security updates has
ended. And quite remarkable that anyone would argue this, given that
even security updates are only guaranteed for 5 months. I told the
OP that IDK of any browsers supported on XP, meaning if he sticks
with XP, IDK what browser he can use for the future. YOU objected,
claiming I'm wrong to say that, because he can still get security
updates only for another 5 months? What is wrong with you?

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

No, Microsoft is not spying on you with Windows 10
The Windows 10 privacy agreement doesn't mean Microsoft is secretly stealing the data from your hard disk. Where do people come up with these crazy ideas?

Buy tinfoil futures.

It does beg the question, why would they include the language in the
user agreement if the software was not there or if they had no intent
of using it?
The guys in my wife's office got a wake up call when they were asked
why the guys were asking Alexa to suck their balls. It turns out she
gets a text of every question they ask and what the answer was.
The open question is how much else gets sent to someone somewhere.
They would not answer that in the Arkansas case. All they said is the
text is not stared on the device.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 7:30:00 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
02:19:23 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 00:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
m Fri, 07 Apr 2017
13:30:07 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:17:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


One hell of a scary article from an unreliable source, isn't it?
BFG

Not much sense in arguing with you. You actually believe this.

There's no point in trying to 'argue' about something YOU don't
know anything about, no.

Why do you post links that show you how to turn data collection
off, then complain about data collection? If you're not willing
to take the simple steps required, shame on you.

That isn't why I posted the article, and, I doubt you're that
stupid, either. If you are, it's on me for assuming your more
intelligent then I've given you credit for. The issue I have is
that the OS shouldn't require me to turn those 'features' off in
the first place. They SHOULDN'T be there. I don't run Windows 10,
I won't run Windows 10 native on any machine I own, either. I
don't believe in giving up my privacy for new eye candy and
possible locked hardware down the road. It's another reason I'm
converting ALL of these machines to Linux. I've tolerated
Microsofts bull**** for years, but, I don't have to tolerate
Win**** 10 OR it's spyware habits on my own personal machines. My
files stored locally are MY FILES, nobody elses.

I've seen a hundred similar articles. Old news. I don't exactly
love turning all that **** off either, but see it as necessary
maintenance. I don't care what OS you use. But I learn what I
need to know about the OS I'm using.


necessary maintenance? You've got be ****ing kidding me. It is old
news from the viewpoint that the pre-release copies of Windows 10
also did it, but, that's really beside the point. Your OS shouldn't
need to send audio recordings of you anyplace, without you telling it
to do so.

Please cite for us the evidence that Win 10 sends audio recordings
of us unless we choose to use Cortana. Nuff said.



In fact, it shouldn't be retaining copies of that stuff,
long term unless you opted to save the audio recordings yourself. Nor
should it be keeping copies of whatever you type on the keyboard
either. Who the hell wants a built in keylogger?



http://www.zdnet.com/article/does-wi...er-spoiler-no/

Does Windows 10 really include a keylogger? (Spoiler: No)
Conspiracy theories sometimes take on a life of their own, independent of the facts. Here's how this one got started.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:32:09 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 11:26:55 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

necessary maintenance? You've got be ****ing kidding me. It is old
news from the viewpoint that the pre-release copies of Windows 10
also did it, but, that's really beside the point. Your OS shouldn't
need to send audio recordings of you anyplace, without you telling it
to do so. In fact, it shouldn't be retaining copies of that stuff,
long term unless you opted to save the audio recordings yourself. Nor
should it be keeping copies of whatever you type on the keyboard
either. Who the hell wants a built in keylogger?

Let's not go in circles. You despise Windows 10. That's fine.
I just work around its "issues." I already told you I resent having
to turn the so-called "spyware" off. But I turn it off.
It's just a trade-off in using Win 10.
BTW, at least 50% of my PC use is gaming. There's no substitute for
Win 10.

+1

That's how I view it too. What MSFT is doing with Win 10 is very
similar to what has been going on with smartphones for a long time
and to a large extent on any PC that you use to browse the internet.
Diesel is hung up on Win 10 allegedly recording your speech for some
nefarious purpose. AFAIK, it only uses your speech if you use Cortana.
And using Cortana is essentially the same thing as using speech to
search, ask questions, etc. on an Android or iPhone. Somehow hundreds
of millions around the world are living with that and the other data
that is collected about what pages you visited, what you voice searched
for, where you are at the moment, etc.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 1:01:43 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

No, Microsoft is not spying on you with Windows 10
The Windows 10 privacy agreement doesn't mean Microsoft is secretly stealing the data from your hard disk. Where do people come up with these crazy ideas?

Buy tinfoil futures.

It does beg the question, why would they include the language in the
user agreement if the software was not there or if they had no intent
of using it?

This is one example of the MSFT language, it was cited by Diesel:

"We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to."

The problem is that the cite he used is totally dishonest. They cut off
the rest of the last sentence. It actually reads:


"when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to protect
our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of the services."

Now, what exactly those circumstances would be, IDK. But clearly MSFT
would be violating the agreement if they started looking at files in
your private folders just for the hell of it, or to extract data
to sell, etc.



The guys in my wife's office got a wake up call when they were asked
why the guys were asking Alexa to suck their balls. It turns out she
gets a text of every question they ask and what the answer was.
The open question is how much else gets sent to someone somewhere.
They would not answer that in the Arkansas case. All they said is the
text is not stared on the device.

Which shows again that it's not unique to Win 10. The same thing happens
with Alexa or any smartphone where you use a voice assistant. AFAIK,
if you don't use Cortana on Win 10, then your voice is not being recorded,
converted to text, sent to MSFT, etc.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 10:09:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

That's how I view it too. What MSFT is doing with Win 10 is very
similar to what has been going on with smartphones for a long time
and to a large extent on any PC that you use to browse the internet.
Diesel is hung up on Win 10 allegedly recording your speech for some
nefarious purpose. AFAIK, it only uses your speech if you use Cortana.
And using Cortana is essentially the same thing as using speech to
search, ask questions, etc. on an Android or iPhone. Somehow hundreds
of millions around the world are living with that and the other data
that is collected about what pages you visited, what you voice searched
for, where you are at the moment, etc.

If your speech is used to improve "speech recognition" O don't see a
real problem with it. Think of the many dialects and regional accents
people have.

Jokingly, my neighbor told Alexa "My ass hurts!" Alexa sent her a
link with the distance and directions to the nearest hospital. :-)

Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
13:32:02 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


BTW, at least 50% of my PC use is gaming. There's no substitute
for Win 10.

Ohh.. That explains it. I'm not really much of a gamer myself,
though. Never really have been. Except the older console stuff when I
was growing up. Since I no longer have operational consoles nor the
cartridges, I tend to play with emulators these days. Nintendo, Atari
2600 (yes, that one. heh). I'm a happy camper with a good game of
Asteroids or space invaders. The new games graphics are impressive as
all hell to me though, downright life like.





--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 17:09:29 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:32:09 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 11:26:55 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

necessary maintenance? You've got be ****ing kidding me. It is
old news from the viewpoint that the pre-release copies of
Windows 10 also did it, but, that's really beside the point.
Your OS shouldn't need to send audio recordings of you anyplace,
without you telling it to do so. In fact, it shouldn't be
retaining copies of that stuff, long term unless you opted to
save the audio recordings yourself. Nor should it be keeping
copies of whatever you type on the keyboard either. Who the hell
wants a built in keylogger?

Let's not go in circles. You despise Windows 10. That's fine.
I just work around its "issues." I already told you I resent
having to turn the so-called "spyware" off. But I turn it off.
It's just a trade-off in using Win 10.
BTW, at least 50% of my PC use is gaming. There's no substitute
for Win 10.

+1

That's how I view it too. What MSFT is doing with Win 10 is very
similar to what has been going on with smartphones for a long time
and to a large extent on any PC that you use to browse the
internet. Diesel is hung up on Win 10 allegedly recording your
speech for some nefarious purpose. AFAIK, it only uses your
speech if you use Cortana. And using Cortana is essentially the
same thing as using speech to search, ask questions, etc. on an
Android or iPhone. Somehow hundreds of millions around the world
are living with that and the other data that is collected about
what pages you visited, what you voice searched for, where you are
at the moment, etc.

Ahh, well, the thing is, I've rooted my phones and modded them quite
a bit. They don't do what a typical smartphone might? be doing. I
have a real GPS that doesn't exactly snitch on me, so I don't use
phones for that purpose either. Besides, the battery runtime is
terrible when you're GPSing your way around. My sense of navigation
is absolutely ****ing terrible. One of my weaknesses.

I use my phone to make/take phone calls. Maybe send a text or two on
occasion and that's about it. I'm old school like that. Despite the
fact the phones are technically, smart phones. In all reality, they
aren't phones at all, though. They are a small footprint size multi
core cpu driven computer with several two way radios.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 17:04:31 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 7:30:00 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
02:19:23 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 00:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
m Fri, 07 Apr
2017 13:30:07 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:17:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


One hell of a scary article from an unreliable source, isn't
it? BFG

Not much sense in arguing with you. You actually believe
this.

There's no point in trying to 'argue' about something YOU don't
know anything about, no.

Why do you post links that show you how to turn data
collection off, then complain about data collection? If
you're not willing to take the simple steps required, shame
on you.

That isn't why I posted the article, and, I doubt you're that
stupid, either. If you are, it's on me for assuming your more
intelligent then I've given you credit for. The issue I have is
that the OS shouldn't require me to turn those 'features' off
in the first place. They SHOULDN'T be there. I don't run
Windows 10, I won't run Windows 10 native on any machine I own,
either. I don't believe in giving up my privacy for new eye
candy and possible locked hardware down the road. It's another
reason I'm converting ALL of these machines to Linux. I've
tolerated Microsofts bull**** for years, but, I don't have to
tolerate Win**** 10 OR it's spyware habits on my own personal
machines. My files stored locally are MY FILES, nobody elses.

I've seen a hundred similar articles. Old news. I don't
exactly love turning all that **** off either, but see it as
necessary maintenance. I don't care what OS you use. But I
learn what I need to know about the OS I'm using.


necessary maintenance? You've got be ****ing kidding me. It is
old news from the viewpoint that the pre-release copies of
Windows 10 also did it, but, that's really beside the point. Your
OS shouldn't need to send audio recordings of you anyplace,
without you telling it to do so.

Please cite for us the evidence that Win 10 sends audio recordings
of us unless we choose to use Cortana. Nuff said.

Why are you moving the goal posts?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/does-wi...nclude-a-keylo
gger-spoiler-no/

If you redefine what a keylogger is, sure.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Sat, 08 Apr 2017 17:01:21 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

No, Microsoft is not spying on you with Windows 10
The Windows 10 privacy agreement doesn't mean Microsoft is
secretly stealing the data from your hard disk. Where do people
come up with these crazy ideas?

Buy tinfoil futures.

It does beg the question, why would they include the language in
the user agreement if the software was not there or if they had no
intent of using it?

Your asking a much too logical question. I hope you don't actually
anticipate a logical answer.

The guys in my wife's office got a wake up call when they were
asked why the guys were asking Alexa to suck their balls. It turns
out she gets a text of every question they ask and what the answer
was. The open question is how much else gets sent to someone
somewhere. They would not answer that in the Arkansas case. All
they said is the text is not stared on the device.

[g] It's not stored long term on your own PC, no. It's uploaded to
the 'cloud' which is a neat buzzword for offsite storage. heh. Alot
like the 'portable' apps buzzword. Apps used to be quite portable,
back in the day. it's making a comeback.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 17:38:58 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 1:01:43 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

No, Microsoft is not spying on you with Windows 10
The Windows 10 privacy agreement doesn't mean Microsoft is
secretly stealing the data from your hard disk. Where do people
come up with these crazy ideas?

Buy tinfoil futures.

It does beg the question, why would they include the language in
the user agreement if the software was not there or if they had
no intent of using it?

This is one example of the MSFT language, it was cited by Diesel:

"We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including
your content (such as the content of your emails, other private
communications or files in private folders), when we have a good
faith belief that doing so is necessary to."

The problem is that the cite he used is totally dishonest. They
cut off the rest of the last sentence. It actually reads:

You may want to take the honest/dishonest aspect up with the article
authors. As, I didn't write the article.

"when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to
protect our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of
the services."


Now, what exactly those circumstances would be, IDK. But clearly
MSFT would be violating the agreement if they started looking at
files in your private folders just for the hell of it, or to
extract data to sell, etc.

Depends on what they define good faith means in the context they're
using it. You trust MS, obviously. I don't.

The guys in my wife's office got a wake up call when they were
asked why the guys were asking Alexa to suck their balls. It
turns out she gets a text of every question they ask and what the
answer was. The open question is how much else gets sent to
someone somewhere. They would not answer that in the Arkansas
case. All they said is the text is not stared on the device.

Which shows again that it's not unique to Win 10. The same thing
happens with Alexa or any smartphone where you use a voice
assistant. AFAIK, if you don't use Cortana on Win 10, then your
voice is not being recorded, converted to text, sent to MSFT, etc.

Umm, where does it say it's converted to text? How is it supposed to
improve speech recognition if it does that? You can't sample
waveforms with text files.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
13:31:07 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:26:43 -0400, wrote:


Why do you restore an OS image once a month??? Just wondering

Usually to clean off test software, unneeded software (eg
Turbotax), or to add software to my base image. Sometimes because
of suspected malware.

What the ****? You don't trust the uber security some people think
Windows 10 has? I did have a virus get loose on this machine once, a
long time ago. risk you take when testing them. It took a couple of
hours for me to write a scanner and remove all traces of it, but, I
didn't have to reload my OS or drivers, OR software. That's a pain in
the ass. And, I could have shaved off atleast an hour or so if I just
reloaded from image instead, but, that's no fun. I wanted to hunt.
Practice keeps your skills current n all.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes from 10
to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new base
image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot of time
and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting around, no
depending on the users internet connection.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to
install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to reload
it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to hardware failure.
(HD), but, not due to any software issues, uhh, no.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 16:23:51 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:29 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


Wow, imagine that. Smartphones have been doing similar for
years now. You don't want a smartphone? Don't want Win 10?
Don't use it! Just stop bitching.

Which smartphones specifically are keeping copies of my
conversations and submitting them elsewhere? Go ahead, take your
time to form a reasonable and believable reply. I'll wait.


All Androids come with Google software which takes speech input
and sends if off to Google for it to search, answer the question
you asked.

True enough. I don't use those features myself though. I don't kid
myself, either. I'm sure it's treated no differently than my search
queries typed into the keyboard on my computers. Except that google
has no way of linking what I typed to me. Options exist, vpn, etc.
Using other peoples network connection, forging browser Identity
information, etc etc etc.

It would be, if they were in fact going through your word files,
your excel spreadsheets, your CAD files, etc, which is what you're
claiming they do. However, you've provided nothing to show that
MSFT is doing that and there is no reason to believe they are.

It's clearly written (as clear as terms of use go anyway) that they
can. For reasons they don't fully disclose. One of those blanket
types of licensing agreements. Now, if you're okay with your OS being
able to pull files from anywhere locally stored on your machine OR,
your network (since it's just a matter of drive mapping) thats on
you. As for me, my files are my files and nobody has the right to be
lifting copies without my permission for any reason.

Collecting info on what websites you visited, what searches you
did, etc, that makes sense and they do that, nothing new there.

See above.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 16:48:47 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:30 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


security updates, ARE infact, updates.


They are just one part of normal product updates during a
product's lifecycle. Security updates are not bug fixes,
improvements, changes made to keep things compatible with new
web softwar, to support new features, etc.

You're really going to continue trying to talk down to me?
Seriously?


Not talking down to you, just explaining the facts. You seem to
think that security updates are all there is to product support.
That's not true. Security updates are the last part of product
support and Mozilla has said they are ending support for Firefox
on XP, so why are you advocating it as a browser for XP for the
future?

First, I don't think security updates are all there is to product
support. I wrote and supported my own antimalware removal tool for
three years, myself. Second, security updates are not the last part
of product support. Security updates are an ongoing thing. You don't
wait to fix issues until the software nears EOL. Not if you're a
responsible author, anyhow.




Security updates are the LAST part of a product's life. And
again, Mozilla has said that security updates will end in just
FIVE months. So, again, WTF is your point? The context here
was upgrading a system now to use FOR THE FUTURE. Five months
of security updates and then even that support ends, that is
reassuring, a path you recommend users be on? Good grief!

Security updates are not the last part or the middle part or any
other part of it's life cycle specifically.

Another lame spin attempt. I didn't say security updates show up
only as the last part of a product's lifecycle. I said that
product support doesn't just include security updates, but also
includes improvements, bug fixes, compatiblity fixes, etc. When
the product is being discontinued, security updates are the last
part of support that's ended. All that other support goes first
and that has already happened with Firefox. And again, Mozilla
has said they are discontinuing Firefox for XP. I posted it.
They said some time ago they will only continue security updates
and that is only guaranteed until SEPT 2017, just FIVE MONTHS FROM
NOW.

I'm not attempting to spin anything. An update is an update,
security, new feature, doesn't matter.

It's really remarkable that you want to argue that Firefox is
supported on XP, especially in the context of this thread, which
is upgrading a system for THE FUTURE. Please, stop embarrassing
yourself.

Firefox IS presently still supported on XP. You don't upgrade a
system for the future thats going to be used by a home user by
continuing to use XP or Windows 7, for that matter.

I'm not embarrasing myself, either. But, I appreciate your concern
and effort to instill another red herring into the conversation. I
find it quite amusing, myself.


They are security
updates, issued whenever a problem is discovered. That has
nothing whatsoever to do with the age of the app or it's near end
of support status.


It does when they've said they are end of lifing Firefox for XP
and that security updates are all they are offering now and that
is only guaranteed for 5 months. If you follow any OS eols,
browser eols, you'd know that support for everything but security
updates goes first, then even the security updates.

It doesn't matter when the software is officially going to be no
longer supported. A security Update, as I said originally, IS AN
UPDATE and those do NOT depend on the software nearing or reaching
EOL. They are issued when a problem is discovered and fixed. Take the
god awful, adobe flash for example. Most of its updates are not to
add additional features.



It's absolutely true. Here again from Mozilla:

You're stretching a bit here. And, you aren't dumb enough not to
know that.


I'm stretching? ROFL! Mozilla has said they are EOLing Firefox
for XP, they announced that long ago and that they would only
offer security updates until Sept 2017. You're the one stretching
that, claiming that Firefox is being supported on XP and that it's
a browser choice for the OP for the future. Five months of just
security updates is a future? Good grief.

I didn't say it was a browser choice for the OP in the future. I've
already stated, multiple times now, that XP nor Windows 7 is a wise
decision for the 'future'. As both are near (XP being the exception
here, it already did) EOL and some newer hardware already refuses to
run Windows 7. What I wrote was that Firefox is still being updated
and it still supports XP, for the time being. I said nothing about
that in relation to the future. So yes, you're stretching AND putting
words in my mouth again.


cite specific exploits in XP that are still unpatched and being
used in some way to 0wn an XP box. I've read scare mongering
stories about the reason for leaving it behind for awhile now,
yet, nobody seems able to provide an actual example. Btw, I'm
going to go ahead and disclose that i've been a member of various
0day exploit sites going back a decade or more. If something
comes up, I'd be one of the first to not only know about it, but
have viable proof of concept code demonstrating it, too. I
already disclosed a bit about myself. I've been in the hacking
scene since I was a kiddo. Although I'm a grayhat these days, I
still maintain contact with all my friends from the blackhat
days. it's prudent for me to do so, obviously.

I thought my point was self explanatory.

Yes, your point was that it's not 2017 and that Firefox is
still fully supported on XP and a wise choice for the future.

Ehh. Not quite. Now, you're actually putting words in my mouth. I
didn't say XP was a wise choice for the future,

Well then why are you here arguing, trying to make Firefox on XP a
valid browser choice for the future?

I didn't say it was or that it wasn't, actually. I commented about
your claim that you knew of no browsers still being updated for XP.
Firefox is, presently. That's ALL I said about that. You've tried to
insert things I didn't say in a weak effort to defend your original
comment.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 16:57:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:31 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Fri,
07 Apr 2017 19:43:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 6:20:48 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Sam E
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:39:54 GMT
in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 04/06/2017 03:04 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox
will still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't
exactly a 'niche' browser.


You must not know much about calendars, it's already
2017.

Nice try.

Nice try at what? It is in fact already 2017.

It's not fall 2017 yet (when Firefox support ends).

When it might, possibly, end.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurerelea...3/firefox-supp
ort -for-xp-and-vista/

In approximately March, 2017, Windows XP and Vista users will
automatically be moved to the Firefox Extended Support Release
(ESR).

Firefox is one of the few browsers that continues to support
Windows XP and Vista, and we expect to continue to provide
security updates for users until September 2017. Users do not
need to take additional action to receive those updates. In
mid-2017, user numbers on Windows XP and Vista will be
reassessed and a final support end date will be announced.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Again, the context of the thread was upgrading hardware on an
XP system with the intention of using it into the future.

True so far.

So, let's get this right. Based on the above, it's your
professional opinion that relying on Firefox as a browser that
will run on XP for the future is a sound decision?

That's not what I wrote, Trader.

That's the context of the thread, where you started arguing that
Firefox is supported on XP, based on the fact that there currently
is only security updates left for Firefox and even that is
scheduled to end in Sept. I said one big problem with XP is that
IDK of any browser that is still supported under XP. That is
true. Mozillar ended all support except for security updates and
even those are guaranteed only through Sept 2017.

But no, according to you, Firefox is still supported under XP.
Who should we believe? You or Mozilla?

Both of us in this case. Mozilla doesn't claim Firefox is no longer
supported on XP, just yet. They are still issuing new versions of it
along with security/non security updates. ESR channel.

Infact, I advised the OP not to
pursue XP 64bit or 'upgrade' to Windows 7, either; for the same
reason. He's only delaying the inevitable.

Oh, I see. But when I said IDK of any browsers that are still
supported on XP, you chimed in with "Firefox is still supported",
when the only support left is security updates and that for
5 months? WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP. You
contradicted your own comment, anyhow. Your personal opinion
concerning what security updates are/aren't doesn't have any bearing
on the initial comment you made. For the time being, Firefox is
still being updated on Windows XP. That will be changing, soon, but,
it hasn't happened yet. My comment concerning the pointless in
upgrading to Windows 7 has far less to do with firefox than it does
wasting the OPS time in the sense that OS is nearing EOL, too for
end users. So if he wants to prepare for the future, his choices are
a bit limited. Go with win**** 10, or, switch to linux.

If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not
Win**** 10.

Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?

That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being
used for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop,
there's no reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact, disable
the CNC machine and/or plasma cutter.

Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context at
least.

You asked me a question. The OP isn't a client of mine. You didn't
ask me specifically about the OP, you asked what I'd tell a client
or customer and I answered you.

That while Mozilla has said they have already
discontinued all support except for security updates, that
because they have said they will continue to provide only
security updates for 5 months, that means it's supported and a
swell choice? WTF?

Er, not quite, no. Still supported, yes.

IT's not supported when all support except for security updates
has ended. And quite remarkable that anyone would argue this,

I find it remarkable that you (I really don't run across many people
who think as you do) that security updates are not updates. Firefox
ESR release is still getting security/non security updates for the
time being, AND, it still supports XP/Vista. ESR versions.

given that even security updates are only guaranteed for 5 months.
I told the OP that IDK of any browsers supported on XP, meaning
if he sticks with XP, IDK what browser he can use for the future.
YOU objected, claiming I'm wrong to say that, because he can still
get security updates only for another 5 months? What is wrong
with you?

Your statement wasn't correct on the face of it. You didn't specify
any qualifying aspects. You stated that you knew of no browsers
still being supported that run on XP, and, that's not the case.
Firefox is, for the time being.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8

They aren't all security updates as you can see.

Look at 45.3 and down:

45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 16:23:51 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:29 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


Wow, imagine that. Smartphones have been doing similar for
years now. You don't want a smartphone? Don't want Win 10?
Don't use it! Just stop bitching.

Which smartphones specifically are keeping copies of my
conversations and submitting them elsewhere? Go ahead, take your
time to form a reasonable and believable reply. I'll wait.


All Androids come with Google software which takes speech input
and sends if off to Google for it to search, answer the question
you asked.

True enough. I don't use those features myself though. I don't kid
myself, either. I'm sure it's treated no differently than my search
queries typed into the keyboard on my computers. Except that google
has no way of linking what I typed to me.

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you typed
or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone back to you?
Of course they do.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:47:44 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

True enough. I don't use those features myself though. I don't kid
myself, either. I'm sure it's treated no differently than my search
queries typed into the keyboard on my computers. Except that google
has no way of linking what I typed to me.

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you typed
or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone back to you?
Of course they do.

Anyone with half a brain would know Google caches their search
queries. Same with Bing. DuckDuckGo may be the only search engine
that doesn't.

What is wrong with him.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:36:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
13:31:07 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:26:43 -0400, wrote:


Why do you restore an OS image once a month??? Just wondering

Usually to clean off test software, unneeded software (eg
Turbotax), or to add software to my base image. Sometimes because
of suspected malware.

What the ****? You don't trust the uber security some people think
Windows 10 has? I did have a virus get loose on this machine once, a
long time ago. risk you take when testing them. It took a couple of
hours for me to write a scanner and remove all traces of it, but, I
didn't have to reload my OS or drivers, OR software. That's a pain in
the ass. And, I could have shaved off atleast an hour or so if I just
reloaded from image instead, but, that's no fun. I wanted to hunt.
Practice keeps your skills current n all.


I did that a few times, but soon enough realized I was just wasting my
time, when I can restore an image in 3 minutes total time boot to
boot. Actually, IME Win 10 is much better than 7 or XP at preventing
malware. Or maybe there's less of it going around.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes from 10
to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new base
image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot of time
and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting around, no
depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable all
of the auto updates.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to
install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to reload
it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to hardware failure.
(HD), but, not due to any software issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I meant by
"break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win 10 is the best of
the lot. I can't confirm getting any malware on Win 10.
Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 20:47:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you
typed or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone
back to you? Of course they do.

Re-read what I wrote. The section you conveniently, snipped:

Options exist, vpn, etc. Using other peoples network connection, forging
browser Identity information, etc etc etc.
I was writing about google, the search engine. I don't use voice commands
on my phones, I'm not too lazy to type...

As far as the android phones go...I use burner phones. They aren't
associated with my name. So, google has no way of tracking me,
personally, no.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Vic Smith
Sat, 08 Apr 2017
23:08:50 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:36:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
m Sat, 08 Apr 2017
13:31:07 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:26:43 -0400, wrote:


Why do you restore an OS image once a month??? Just wondering

Usually to clean off test software, unneeded software (eg
Turbotax), or to add software to my base image. Sometimes
because of suspected malware.

What the ****? You don't trust the uber security some people think
Windows 10 has? I did have a virus get loose on this machine once,
a long time ago. risk you take when testing them. It took a couple
of hours for me to write a scanner and remove all traces of it,
but, I didn't have to reload my OS or drivers, OR software. That's
a pain in the ass. And, I could have shaved off atleast an hour or
so if I just reloaded from image instead, but, that's no fun. I
wanted to hunt. Practice keeps your skills current n all.


I did that a few times, but soon enough realized I was just
wasting my time, when I can restore an image in 3 minutes total
time boot to boot. Actually, IME Win 10 is much better than 7 or
XP at preventing malware. Or maybe there's less of it going
around.

You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some pretty
sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus infection in
years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes from
10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new
base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot of
time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting around, no
depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable all
of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has had
problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS has had to
issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to
install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to
reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to hardware
failure. (HD), but, not due to any software issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I meant
by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win 10 is the
best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any malware on Win 10.
Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion concerning
Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But, hey, if it works
for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a vacation in years. Maybe
I should consider doing that sometime this summer. I could probably
use it. Hackers aren't all bad you know. Some of us are quite useful
in a positive sense.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 06:31:07 -0700, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:26:43 -0400, wrote:


Why do you restore an OS image once a month??? Just wondering

Usually to clean off test software, unneeded software (eg Turbotax),
or to add software to my base image. Sometimes because of suspected
malware. Looking at my image archive, it seems to actually average
about every 45 days. It normally takes from 10 to 30 minutes.
Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new base
image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.
Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to install
my OS one time only.

I maintain 53 windows 7 machines in one office, and 32 Windows 7 and
35? XP in another office and it's been about 2 years since I re-imaged
a drive - and that was only ONE. Not only do I not have to re-image, I
don't re-install either.- I don't have to, and my machines run
perfectly fine. I guess that's what they pay me for.

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:07:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 06:31:07 -0700, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:26:43 -0400, wrote:


Why do you restore an OS image once a month??? Just wondering

Usually to clean off test software, unneeded software (eg Turbotax),
or to add software to my base image. Sometimes because of suspected
malware. Looking at my image archive, it seems to actually average
about every 45 days. It normally takes from 10 to 30 minutes.
Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new base
image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.
Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to install
my OS one time only.

I maintain 53 windows 7 machines in one office, and 32 Windows 7 and
35? XP in another office and it's been about 2 years since I re-imaged
a drive - and that was only ONE. Not only do I not have to re-image, I
don't re-install either.- I don't have to, and my machines run
perfectly fine. I guess that's what they pay me for.

Different environment.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some pretty
sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus infection in
years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't seen one
make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes from
10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new
base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot of
time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting around, no
depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable all
of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has had
problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS has had to
issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to
install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to
reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to hardware
failure. (HD), but, not due to any software issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I meant
by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win 10 is the
best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any malware on Win 10.
Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion concerning
Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But, hey, if it works
for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a vacation in years. Maybe
I should consider doing that sometime this summer. I could probably
use it. Hackers aren't all bad you know. Some of us are quite useful
in a positive sense.

I have no use for them.

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
01:17:45 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some pretty
sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus infection in
years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't seen
one make the news in years.

DOS or win32? Many viruses didn't exactly make the news, but, still
managed to spread quite nicely. Wildlist n all. Sadly, most of mine did
infact make the news. Scare mongering reporters, the lot of them.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:52 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
01:17:45 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some pretty
sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus infection in
years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't seen
one make the news in years.

DOS or win32? Many viruses didn't exactly make the news, but, still
managed to spread quite nicely. Wildlist n all. Sadly, most of mine did
infact make the news. Scare mongering reporters, the lot of them.


No. IBM 370. Assembler aka BAL. That's what I assumed when you
said asm. Haven't done it since1980. Maybe 1981.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 06:25:48 -0700, Vic Smith
wrote:

No. IBM 370. Assembler aka BAL. That's what I assumed when you
said asm. Haven't done it since1980. Maybe 1981.

I wrote some assembler in the 70s (PIOCS) writing a drop in
replacement for OLTEP that would run as a batch file on a DOS system.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 4:39:55 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 16:57:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:47:31 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Fri,
07 Apr 2017 19:43:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 6:20:48 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Sam E
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:39:54 GMT
in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 04/06/2017 03:04 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox
will still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't
exactly a 'niche' browser.


You must not know much about calendars, it's already
2017.

Nice try.

Nice try at what? It is in fact already 2017.

It's not fall 2017 yet (when Firefox support ends).

When it might, possibly, end.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurerelea...3/firefox-supp
ort -for-xp-and-vista/

In approximately March, 2017, Windows XP and Vista users will
automatically be moved to the Firefox Extended Support Release
(ESR).

Firefox is one of the few browsers that continues to support
Windows XP and Vista, and we expect to continue to provide
security updates for users until September 2017. Users do not
need to take additional action to receive those updates. In
mid-2017, user numbers on Windows XP and Vista will be
reassessed and a final support end date will be announced.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Again, the context of the thread was upgrading hardware on an
XP system with the intention of using it into the future.

True so far.

So, let's get this right. Based on the above, it's your
professional opinion that relying on Firefox as a browser that
will run on XP for the future is a sound decision?

That's not what I wrote, Trader.

That's the context of the thread, where you started arguing that
Firefox is supported on XP, based on the fact that there currently
is only security updates left for Firefox and even that is
scheduled to end in Sept. I said one big problem with XP is that
IDK of any browser that is still supported under XP. That is
true. Mozillar ended all support except for security updates and
even those are guaranteed only through Sept 2017.

But no, according to you, Firefox is still supported under XP.
Who should we believe? You or Mozilla?

Both of us in this case. Mozilla doesn't claim Firefox is no longer
supported on XP, just yet. They are still issuing new versions of it

Once again, complete BS. Mozilla has said that there will be no
new versions of Firefox for XP, only SECURITY UPDATES and only those
are guaranteed for another 5 months. Why do you lie? In addition,
Mozillar points out that MSFT is no longer issuing security updates
for XP and Mozilla is telling it's Firefox users to move to a
supported OS and supported browser.



along with security/non security updates. ESR channel.

Infact, I advised the OP not to
pursue XP 64bit or 'upgrade' to Windows 7, either; for the same
reason. He's only delaying the inevitable.

Oh, I see. But when I said IDK of any browsers that are still
supported on XP, you chimed in with "Firefox is still supported",
when the only support left is security updates and that for
5 months? WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP.

My statement was not misleading, but your BS advice sure is.
The context, again was a person planning for the future. And
you had to chime in, claiming that Firefox is still supported
on XP, when the only support left is security updates and even
that is only guaranteed for 5 months. Some future, some great
advice!


You
contradicted your own comment, anyhow. Your personal opinion
concerning what security updates are/aren't doesn't have any bearing
on the initial comment you made. For the time being, Firefox is
still being updated on Windows XP.

Was the poster concerned about the time being? Idiot.

That will be changing, soon, but,
it hasn't happened yet. My comment concerning the pointless in
upgrading to Windows 7 has far less to do with firefox than it does
wasting the OPS time in the sense that OS is nearing EOL, too for
end users. So if he wants to prepare for the future, his choices are
a bit limited. Go with win**** 10, or, switch to linux.


No **** Sherlock, which is why I said IDK of any browser that is
currently supported on XP. And for me and I think most reasonable
people, 5 months of security updates only, from folks that have
already discontinued ALL OTHER SUPPORT and are telling their
users of Firefox on XP to move, doesn't qualify as "supported".
But heh, feel free to climb on board a browser for 5 months.


If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not
Win**** 10.

Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?

That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being
used for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop,
there's no reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact, disable
the CNC machine and/or plasma cutter.

Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context at
least.

You asked me a question. The OP isn't a client of mine. You didn't
ask me specifically about the OP, you asked what I'd tell a client
or customer and I answered you.


Context matters. The OP isn't running a CNC. Does CNC need
an internet browser? WTF?



That while Mozilla has said they have already
discontinued all support except for security updates, that
because they have said they will continue to provide only
security updates for 5 months, that means it's supported and a
swell choice? WTF?

Er, not quite, no. Still supported, yes.

IT's not supported when all support except for security updates
has ended. And quite remarkable that anyone would argue this,

I find it remarkable that you (I really don't run across many people
who think as you do) that security updates are not updates.

Lying again. I didn't say that security updates are not updates.
I said when all you're left with is 5 months of security updates,
ie, no more bug fixes, no more no improvements to make sure it
stays compatible, that is not a *supported* browser. You seem to
think that security updates are all there is to supporting a
product. Probably because you've got a tin foil hat on when
it comes to "security".



Firefox
ESR release is still getting security/non security updates for the
time being, AND, it still supports XP/Vista. ESR versions.

BS. Mozilla has clearly said there are no more updates other than
security updates. And even that is for just 5 months. Wow, some
"time being", for a poster upgrading a system for the future!



given that even security updates are only guaranteed for 5 months.
I told the OP that IDK of any browsers supported on XP, meaning
if he sticks with XP, IDK what browser he can use for the future.
YOU objected, claiming I'm wrong to say that, because he can still
get security updates only for another 5 months? What is wrong
with you?

Your statement wasn't correct on the face of it. You didn't specify
any qualifying aspects. You stated that you knew of no browsers
still being supported that run on XP, and, that's not the case.
Firefox is, for the time being.

No it;s not when Mozilla has already issued the final release for XP,
has stated that there will only be security updates going forward
and only guaranteed that for 5 months and told it's users to move
to a newer OS that is supported. Besides the fact that Firefox is
only issuing security updates for 5 months, you also have the fact
that MSFT is no longer doing security updates for XP PERIOD!
Quite remarkable for a tin foil hat guy to be advocating that
using Firefox on XP is cool and supported, when even the OS itself
is no longer receiving security updates from MSFT!

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 7:49:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 08
Apr 2017 20:47:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you
typed or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone
back to you? Of course they do.

Re-read what I wrote. The section you conveniently, snipped:

Options exist, vpn, etc. Using other peoples network connection, forging
browser Identity information, etc etc etc.
I was writing about google, the search engine. I don't use voice commands
on my phones, I'm not too lazy to type...

Again, context is everything. The context was what goes on
with SMARTPHONES today. What percent of smartphone users are
doing the above, ie tin foil hat stuff because they are afraid
that google will know that they searched for "pizza near me"?
And if you don't do something extraordinary, then of course
Google knows what you've been looking for, where you've been
located with the phone, etc. Which of course why the comparison
to Win 10 is logical.




As far as the android phones go...I use burner phones. They aren't
associated with my name. So, google has no way of tracking me,
personally, no.



What percent of smartphone users are using burner phones?
That's the issue. You seem to think that 99.9% of us users
have the same extreme penchant for privacy that you do.
The reality is that if you're using a typical smartphone
like 99% of the users out there, then what get's tracked
and seen on Win 10 isn't much different than what's been
going on for years with phones.

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:17:51 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some pretty
sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus infection in
years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't seen one
make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes from
10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to do.
That includes restoring my base image, updating, creating new
base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb) dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot of
time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting around, no
depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable all
of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has had
problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS has had to
issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer to
install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to
reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to hardware
failure. (HD), but, not due to any software issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I meant
by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win 10 is the
best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any malware on Win 10.
Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion concerning
Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But, hey, if it works
for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a vacation in years. Maybe
I should consider doing that sometime this summer. I could probably
use it. Hackers aren't all bad you know. Some of us are quite useful
in a positive sense.

I have no use for them.

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was substantial.
In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a huge increase
in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that, maybe half, is
that they are starting with a clean machine again. If they just
did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in performance.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was substantial.
In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a huge increase
in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that, maybe half, is
that they are starting with a clean machine again. If they just
did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in performance.

True dat.

That is one reason why I like to keep data on a separate drive.
Then you can just reload the original C: and start as a virgin without
losing any of your data.
Keep all of your data on D:, Keep all of your executables on C:
Go in and change the target in your programs from "my documents" to
"D:\documents" and create separate directories for each program.
The first time I load a system it takes a few hours to actually get
all of the updates, software loaded and configured. Then I image that
drive after I get things the way I like it and I can get back there in
a few minutes if something bad happens.
A huge advantage of having all of your data on a separate drive is you
can use regular drag and drop tools to manage it.
C: stays relatively small so the image restores quickly and you can
maintain lots of incremental images in a fairly small space.

On 2017-04-08, Diesel wrote:

So, google has no way of tracking me, personally.

Silly you!

nb

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was substantial.
In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a huge increase
in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that, maybe half, is
that they are starting with a clean machine again. If they just
did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in performance.

Yes, though apps are much better now at cleaning up when uninstalled.
I like a "clean" system, and don't give a second thought
about installing apps to try out. I also sometimes "hack" my OS.
By imaging every month or two, I don't have to excessively worry about
system changes. Also malware becomes a non-issue, even if it's a
"sleeper" type virus.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 12:16:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was substantial.
In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a huge increase
in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that, maybe half, is
that they are starting with a clean machine again. If they just
did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in performance.

True dat.

That is one reason why I like to keep data on a separate drive.
Then you can just reload the original C: and start as a virgin without
losing any of your data.
Keep all of your data on D:, Keep all of your executables on C:
Go in and change the target in your programs from "my documents" to
"D:\documents" and create separate directories for each program.
The first time I load a system it takes a few hours to actually get
all of the updates, software loaded and configured. Then I image that
drive after I get things the way I like it and I can get back there in
a few minutes if something bad happens.
A huge advantage of having all of your data on a separate drive is you
can use regular drag and drop tools to manage it.
C: stays relatively small so the image restores quickly and you can
maintain lots of incremental images in a fairly small space.
That said, using the small "C:" system drive and maintaining it,
updates never need to be re-installed or drive re-imaged.

When a system slows down or misbehaves, I run my maintenance utilities
and the system comes right back to healthy performance levels of a
fresh install.

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
13:25:48 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:52 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
m Sun, 09 Apr 2017
01:17:45 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

DOS or win32? Many viruses didn't exactly make the news, but,
still managed to spread quite nicely. Wildlist n all. Sadly, most
of mine did infact make the news. Scare mongering reporters, the
lot of them.


No. IBM 370. Assembler aka BAL. That's what I assumed when you
said asm. Haven't done it since1980. Maybe 1981.

We were discussing Windows, last time I checked.. and I specifically
told you I had a virus get loose on me during testing and had to
write a scanner to hunt it down. I thought you did the same thing,
based on your initial reply. Was I mistaken? Or, did I accidently
confuse you?




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sun, 09
Apr 2017 15:56:27 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:17:51 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes
from 10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to
do. That includes restoring my base image, updating,
creating new base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb)
dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot
of time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting
around, no depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable
all of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has had
problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS has had
to issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer
to install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to
reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to
hardware failure. (HD), but, not due to any software issues,
uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I
meant by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win
10 is the best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any
malware on Win 10. Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion
concerning Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But,
hey, if it works for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a
vacation in years. Maybe I should consider doing that sometime
this summer. I could probably use it. Hackers aren't all bad you
know. Some of us are quite useful in a positive sense.

I have no use for them.

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was
substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a
huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that,
maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine again.
If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in
performance.

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout. Unused
sectors are not copied when the image is created, unless, you're
doing a forensic image. As a result, when you reload from it, it's
like loading a blank hard disk. System restore, oth, doesn't do this,
so you wouldn't get much of a good boost in performance, Not as far
as file access times go, anyhow. In fact, you might lose a bit. Since
you're erasing files, marking the space as free, etc. Also, system
restore really isn't good for dealing with an actual virus. It won't
magically cure you. And in some cases, using system restore will
actually make a malware issue worse. Some malware families sort of,
booby trapped it and counted on you resorting to going that route.








--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

news Sun, 09 Apr 2017 16:16:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was
substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a
huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that,
maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine again.
If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in
performance.

True dat.

That is one reason why I like to keep data on a separate drive.
Then you can just reload the original C: and start as a virgin
without losing any of your data.

That depends. If you had proprietary software that stored special
data in so called 'unused' sectors, it wouldn't be copied to your
image, unless, you created a forensic grade image. Typically, unused
sectors are not copied into the image. Restoring from a normal image
is like formatting and loading a fresh copy of Windows and other
associated files.

Keep all of your data on D:, Keep all of your executables on C:
Go in and change the target in your programs from "my documents"
to "D:\documents" and create separate directories for each
program. The first time I load a system it takes a few hours to
actually get all of the updates, software loaded and configured.
Then I image that drive after I get things the way I like it and I
can get back there in a few minutes if something bad happens.
A huge advantage of having all of your data on a separate drive is
you can use regular drag and drop tools to manage it.

A single actual HD with multiple partitions isn't really a seperate
drive, though. If hardware failure occurs in your scenario, you can
lose data on 'drive' D: just as easily as you would on 'drive' C:

You wouldn't believe how many people i've met who kept an image on
'drive' D: without realizing the single HD present on the computer
would take both 'drives' south for the summer, with no plans on
returning should hardware failure occur with the HD.

C: stays relatively small so the image restores quickly and you
can maintain lots of incremental images in a fairly small space.

Just keep them on an actual physical seperate hard disk.. otherwise,
if your HD craps out, you will lose the images you thought were safe
too.





--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
16:52:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was
substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a
huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that,
maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine again.
If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in
performance.

Yes, though apps are much better now at cleaning up when
uninstalled. I like a "clean" system, and don't give a second
thought about installing apps to try out. I also sometimes "hack"
my OS. By imaging every month or two, I don't have to excessively
worry about system changes. Also malware becomes a non-issue,
even if it's a "sleeper" type virus.

Depends on the virus. [g] If you don't know the virus is present,
you're unknowingly doing it a favor with the imaging. A couple of super
snarky viruses payloads was that of sector level data diddling. If done
slow enough, it could be months before you noticed a problem. How far
back do your images go?


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.